1. ' M. SALEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-Mohammad Rashid, the appellant, is serving as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Office of Chief Engineer, Highway Department and appeals against the order of the Chief Engineer, Highway Department, dated 12th/l3th November, 1979, conveying refusal on the part of the respondent No. 1 (Secretary C & W) to grant the appellant the special pay of Rs, 100 p.m. Claimed by the appellant on the ground that though not serving against the post of Administrative Officer he continues to permanently hold that post.
2. ' Facts of the case are that the appellant was promoted as Administrative Officer w,e,f, 19th December 1966, and confirmed as such w,e,f, 22nd June 1970. According to practice incumbents of the post of A.O. Get their own pay of Senior Superintendent plus Rs, 100 p.m. As special pay. On 1st July 1970 the appellant was posted as Budget and Accounts Officer whereas one Mahmood Ahmad (since deceased) was posted as A. O. Highways, and Mohammad Iraj (respondent No, 4) was posted as A.O., Buildings, there being the two posts of A.O., available in the two Departments which were one before being bifurcated. The appellant sought to be posted in his old post, or any of the two posts of A.O. (since they were interchangeable) but his request was not granted and he continued to express his grievance at the loss of his special pay of Rs, 100 p.m. In the meantime, other persons continued to be posted against the two posts of A.O.
3. ' The parties were heard. The contention of the appellant is that he -is a permanent confirmed A.O., and by virtue of that distinction he cannot be made to lose the special pay of Rs, 100 p.m. If transferred to another equivalent post. There was no cause for his transfer as Budget and Accounts Officer or as Assistant Accounts Officer which was done merely to accommodate other persons and to deprive him of the special pay. The plea that Finance Department did not agree to payment of the special pay for the period when the appellant was not actually working as A.O., does not hold good because F.D., had nothing to do with the matter. The Chief Engineer had recommended his case and even respondent No. 1 himself had recommended payment of special pay but because of F.D's refusal to agree the appellant bad been deprived of a benefit which was his due right. On behalf of the respondent-Department it was urged that the special pay was inalienably connected with the post of A.O., and could not be paid to an Assistant Accounts Officer or the Budget and Accounts Officer which, though equivalent posts, did not carry any special pay. The transfer of the appellant was made in the public interest and he could not claim special pay for a post which he had not held.
4. We feel that the fact of the appellant having been selected/approved by the Public Service Commission as A.O., lends strength to his contention that even when working on another post he continued to hold the post of Administrative Officer. We have not been able to understand the need for originally transferring the appellant from the post of A.O., in the absence of any adverse report or administrative exigency. In fact we would agree with the observation of F.D., in its letter of 22nd February 1978, to the C & W Department that it was the Administrative Department's failing if the appellant was not made to work as A.O., after he had been approved as such by the Public Service Commission and then confirmed against the post. Moreover, nothing has been put forward by the responding Department to show the justification for the appellant's transfer from the post of A.O. The appellant's right to special pay is also fortified by the analogy that an official continues to draw special pay while on leave though for the leave period he is not actually working against that post.
5. In view of the above, we hold that the appellant did not lose his right to special pay when he was transferred as A.O., without his own agreement. The appeal is accepted.